Finney v. Turner
Supreme Court of Missouri
ERROR to Carroll Circuit Court. 1. That the Court erred in overruling the motion to strike out a part of the notice to set off. 2. That the Court did not err in permitting the note to be read in evidence. 3. That the Court erred in admitting the evidence introduced by the defendant. 4. That the Court erred in not excluding the said evidence after it had been given. 5. That the Court erred in refusing the several instructions asked on behalf of the plaintiff and in giving…
Read the full summary
ERROR to Carroll Circuit Court. 1. That the Court erred in overruling the motion to strike out a part of the notice to set off. 2. That the Court did not err in permitting the note to be read in evidence. 3. That the Court erred in admitting the evidence introduced by the defendant. 4. That the Court erred in not excluding the said evidence after it had been given. 5. That the Court erred in refusing the several instructions asked on behalf of the plaintiff and in giving those asked on behalf of the defendant. 6. That the Court erred in refusing to set aside the judgment of non-suit, and to…
1Opinion of the CourtNapton, J.
This was a petition in debt on a note executed by Turner to one Major, and by Major assigned, without recourse, to the plaintiff, Finney. The defendant pleaded nil debet, and gave notice of a set off. In this notice it was alleged that the defendant, (Turner,) and the payee of the note3 (Major,) were co-partners in the carpenter’s trade, and that a debt was contracted by the firm, which Turner paid, one-half of which payment the defendant claims as set off. It was also stated that an account was due the firm of Turner & Hamner, by the said firm of Turner & Major, (the defendant being a member…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Jones v. ShawSupreme Court of Missouri · 1878
- Ruddle v. HorineMissouri Court of Appeals · 1889
- King v. BellamySupreme Court of Kansas · 1910
- Powell v. DowningMissouri Court of Appeals · 1950
- Colson v. . ArnotNew York Court of Appeals · 1874